Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape locations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-19 21:26Z

RuneScape locations[edit]

Keep - I personally think this page comes in handy for players who arent too sure about certain locations in Gielnor. 1 thing i do think that should happen is that it should be rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJ MeXsTa (talk • contribs) .
It isn't meant just for players. But a non-player reader would still be interested in what the game world looks like. I've never really got into Lord of the Rings, but I still find the Middle-earth article fascinating. Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article helps people learn more about the game, and shows them may aspects of gameplay. Pr0grammer1 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite almost all the information is only useful to game players, makeing it fancruft. There is so much that the article would be below "stub" grade if it were removed. It can't stay this way, so remove it or change it. Exarion 23:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I feel this article gives even non-players useful information about the nature and feel of the game. It does not only benefit players. Mamyles 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the very first edit in 2004, the edit summary was: "new article, to condense articles about locations in runescape". I think it still serves this purpose -- it prevents the cruft from happening, whilst providing information on a well-known and notable game. I think it's reasonable and notable enough to have one article of its own. (By the way, I've never played RuneScape and barely even know what it's about; this is just how I see things.) --Czj 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fictional location articles are encyclopedic; see Category:Fantasy worlds, Category:Fictional locations, subcategories and especially Middle-earth: a former front page featured article. If it seems a little overdetailed, water it down and clean it up. Get rid of stuff saying things like 'ooh its really good to cut wood here', and keep the geography. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad nomination reason (fancruft should not be used to explain a nomination), and since these locations are hardly any different from any of the other games with discreet locations described, I'm not going to vote delete anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but do a major rewrite, as the article is badly organized and confusing. I admit, there's a lot of fancruft, but this article is important in explaining Gielnor in terms of locations and landscape. Instead of deleting, why not help with a rewrite? I just started working on one in my ~~Talk Page~~. Pyrospirit 01:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not talk page; it's found at this link now. I'd appreciate any help with this. Pyrospirit 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close Close this AfD and let them work on a rewrite. MartinDK 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else, surprised this hasn't been closed. --Wizardman 16:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.